Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Lincoln Zephyr/MKZ

16364666869150

Comments

  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,666
    The Zephyr wasn't an afterthought. But the 2006 model was definitely a rush job based on the demise of the LS. That is evidenced by the 2007 MKZ which is how the car was planned all along. Based on the number of Zephyr's sold already I'd say it's successful as a stop gap measure.

    I think Lincoln is moving fast - fast being a relative term. The problem is they keep stopping and changing directions going all the way back to the PAG fiasco.

    They need to get the MKS out asap and start working on a new RWD/AWD platform for their flagship that can be shared with other divisions.
  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687
    JDPower Initial Quality Study results are in, the Zephyr acheived a 2nd place spot behind the Lexus ES330.
  • theman123theman123 Posts: 170
    JDPower Initial Quality Study results are in, the Zephyr acheived a 2nd place spot behind the Lexus ES330.

    Oh now that's going to stir the S@#$ storm. Hey does anybody have an actual link to the actual rankings and all ?
    Thanks
    :)
  • rolo77rolo77 Posts: 31
    Entry premium car:
    –Winner: Lexus IS 250/IS 350
    –Runners-up: Lincoln Zephyr, Acura TL

    Chief

    JDPower Initial Quality Study results are in !
  • bigtbigt Posts: 412
    The JDPower site links are mostly broken. I did find this but it does not mention the Zephyr:

    http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=14982
  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687
  • buckwheatbuckwheat Posts: 396
    Notice that winners in each category were based separately on votes from those in the auto industry and the news media.
    Included in the industry vote (2007 MKZ)..

    http://wardsauto.com/home/interior_winners_announced/
  • Why Ford decided to build a brand new POS 3.2L engine that makes a pathetic 236 hp in England when they could have saved some development money and based it off of the more modern and powerful 3.5 then added enhancements to it for the euro brands?

    Why all of this money spend on an engine that is HP defecient right out of the gate. In an era of the 305hp toyota/Lexus V6 this 236hp garbadge is unacceptable.

    C&D described this engine in the volvo as "adequate". The only way 236hp out of a 'new' engine is adequate is if its MY1999.

    What do you guys think? Certainly the MKZ's engine could fit in a volvo. :mad:
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,415
    I think 236 hp is not so bad for a 3.2. I understand the 3.2 is a straight 6. In addition to the advantage that may offer in terms of smoothness, it also gives Volvo something that is not simply a re-badged Ford. Still, your point is well-taken.
  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687
    Why is the 3.2L now labeled a POS?

    Volvo' took the lead development of the 3.2L I-6 and it fits THEIR needs the most. Volvo prefers using I-6's because it allows for more space ahead of the engine, for crashworthiness.

    Jaguar and LR will also have access to this engine. The LR2 will have this engine stateside. S-type will also use this engine next time around.

    Also, a good majority of these engines will go towards other countries (specially in Europe) where your taxed upon certain engine/emmissions/size criteria. In the case of the Volvo S60, the 3.2L will hardly sell in comparison to the 2.5L I5, and/or D5.

    If someone wants more power, a turbocharged variation of this engine will be available. A few for those countries, yet MANY for N.A.

    Another issue is vehicle dynamics. I've test driven the Camry with it's 3.5L and thrown it into a corner, and understood why I will never own a FWD vehicle with that much weight in the engine bay. Then again, the typical Camry buyer would hardly drive their car that way.

    Volvo's 3.2L sits a bit rearward than the current 2.5L for better platform balancing, and crash protection. Using a turbocharger is wiser for THEIR use, than throwing more displacement. In the Jaguar, the vehicle will achieve better 50/50 weight distribution, which is perfect for what THEY need.

    And most importantly, Ford allowed PAG to design this engine for their sole use. Don't expect it in any Ford/Mercury branded vehicle for N.A. so it doesn't dilute PAG.
  • rolo77rolo77 Posts: 31
    Military overseas just put a down payment for a MKZ 07,
    using price protection 06 prices for 07 models. The estimated price on my invoice was a increase
    of 563.00 for a 07 FWD, but no pricing for
    AWD 07, so using the base 2000.00 increase
    that came from Ford

    I would estimate MKZ 07 base will increase 563.00 to 600.00
    MKZ 07 AWD upgrade extra 1400.00 to 1500.00 option

    once again, do not hold me to this just using my invoice
    of a 563.00 est increase (slightly discounted
    for military) and what ford put out. my MKZ priced protected 06 prices for and 07 came in fully loaded at 31,600.00 about 3600.00 off MSRP so I am happy, still debating my interior but looks like light stone with the blue exterior

    Chief
  • bigtbigt Posts: 412
    I am trying to figure out how you are pricing the 2007 MKZ?

    What site are you using?
  • rolo77rolo77 Posts: 31
    Not using a site, Stationed in Japan, so I put a down payment for a 07 MKZ, using a dealer with Military overseas
    sales. This information was on the dealers disk for the
    month of june.

    Chief
  • If you had to chose out of these two cars which one would you get? I'm deciding out of the two. Which has the better options, performance and etc. I know the avalon is bigger than the zephyr right? I also want to add a navigation system (probably pioneer avic z1). But let me know what I should thinkg about, God willing I hope to get it in December.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,415
    The Avalon is much roomier, has more equipment (and options) for the price, gets better mileage, and will have better re-sale value. The Zephyr will be available at a greater discount per MSRP, is arguably better looking, is more exclusive (you will see fewer of them), is easier to park, and is quality built like the Toyota. You'd have to drive each one to see for yourself which one you could best live with.
  • bigtbigt Posts: 412
    "is more exclusive (you will see fewer of them)"

    That is an interesting parameter. Actually it played a part in my purchase. I had the 300m since 2000 and thought about the new one and then said to myself, everyone has one of these see them all the time. I wanted something different. Now I must admit that you can go way over to that side because here in the Greater DC area I have only seen one or two of them since I purchased mine. Still if I find a sharp MKZ for 2007 I might trade up.
  • Ford should be the priority.

    Volvo took the lead in making the engine? Great, so more moeny was spent by ford to pay them. They can take the lead all they want, give them the 3.5L to start working with, they can tone it down to 3.2 if they want (like cadillac with the 3.6) but Ford would have saved allot of development money, and most credit would have went to volvo, plus the 3.5L cost would be spread out better.

    If volvo wants more space bet. the engine and the front of they car they can either redesign the car, or wait till ford has more money, b/c if ford/volvo worked together on this "V6 to save the company" as it could have been called, meybe it would come out of the gate AT 300 HP and give toyota something to worry about.

    And many cutomers are growing tired of paying top dollar for inferrior euro performance from brands like jag/volvo/and less so Saab. The fact is, that our co's who own these brands could fit better parts in them. What GM did for saab by decreasing the turo the 3.2L gives the 9-3 some serious power. Im just saying that 236hp is a joke. And what volvo needs is irrelevant, its what we need that counts, and when a 25K camry bows past your new 35K volvo/Jag you will really feel that you got your moneys worth.

    ANT, i love Ford, but IMO they made a terrible mistake here. They could have made the 3.5 even better, giving it DI in addition to its cirrent stup, but those funds were spent to give volvo an inline engine. Pathetic.
  • bigtbigt Posts: 412
    Does anyone know if any of the folks from the car manufactures ever browse these sites and read the comments?
  • ANT14ANT14 Posts: 2,687
    So your saying, let's forget and throw everything out the window (crash space, perception, exclusive engine use) because all that counts is acceleration, and thats it?

    It's important to take all the above mentioned senarios in consideration. Yes the $25K Camry can blow by the Volvo, just like the Mustang can do all the above for $21K, case being, buyer's aren't exclusively looking for power. And IF they were, a Turbocharged 3.2L will be made available later, in "R" format.

    If manufacturer's followed what the rags would demand, all cars would be as huge as minivans, with V8/V10 engines, and RWD.

    There's always going to be a vehicle, that is faster, another that handles better, and another that is less expensive, another that has better materials, etc. I haven't driven the perfect package yet...I know, I try them all. So the 3.2L will do fine, and for those who need more power, there's the "R" series.
Sign In or Register to comment.